This case is coming for final hearing on 03-04-2014 in the presence of S.Meenakumari and of Sri K.S.Shankar, Advocate for Opposite Parties and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following.                                  

: O R D E R :

(As per Smt. K.V.R.Maheswari, Honourable President(FAC) on behalf of the Bench)

1.       The case of the Complainant is that he is the owner of the house property bearing Dr.No.23-14-39, Chinnamvari Street, I Town area, Visakhapatnam and he availed the electricity service connection from the opposite parties for his domestic purpose under Phase-I, vide service connection No.112117B600 011878 and has been paying the electricity consumption charges to the Opposite parties regularly without any default.  The Complainant stated that he used to consume the power to an extent of Rs.1,000/- per month and he paid the consumption charges till November, 2011 payable to the month of October, 2011 regularly.  While so, the Opposite parties served the electricity bill for the month of November, 2011 payable in the month of December, 2011 for an amount of Rs.24,899/- by noting the meter reading as 6336 on 16.11.2011 and meter reading on 13313 on 22.12.2011 for 3977units and demanded the Complainant to pay Rs.24,899/- on or before 20.01.2012 vide bill dated 22.12.2011.  Subsequently, the Complainant approached the 1^st opposite party and enquired about the issuance of bill for such huge amount and also requested the authorities to rectify the mistake in issuing such huge amount of bill.  But the opposite parties did not respond and threatened the complainant to pay the bill amount initially and later they will look after the matter.  The Complainant also made his representation to the 1^st opposite party on 13.01.2012 where in he requested the authorities to inspect the current meter and change the same with a new one to avoid issuance of such huge bills and the customer care centre of opposite parties having acknowledged the complaint vide complaint No.294888 dated 13.01.2012 but did not take any action to change the said electricity meter, but served another bill dated 22.01.2012 for Rs.25,799-40p.s. payable on or before 25.02.2012.  The Complainant stated that he roamed around the offices of the opposite parties, but they failed to replace the electricity meter in place of defective one and also made a threat regarding the disconnection of service connection which causes mental, physical and financial hardship. 

2.       The Complainant stated that he is a poor person and no need to consume that much power for his domestic purpose only because of defect in service meter the reading reached to high extent and the opposite parties did not consider the monthly consumption for domestic use and issued the bill for such huge amount which clearly shows the gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence, this complaint to direct the opposite parties;

a)      to change the service meter and to install the new meter

b)      to rectify the electricity bill for Rs.24,899/- and not insisting the complainant to pay that amount.

c)       to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages besides costs of Rs.10,000/-.

3.       On the otherhand, the 1^st opposite party filed its counter and 2^nd,3^rd  &  4^th opposite parties adopted the same.

4.       The Opposite parties are denied the allegations mentioned in the complaint and pleaded that the bill was raised in the month of November 2011 and payable for the month of December, 2011 for Rs.24,899/- to the complainant, but the complainant instead of paying the bill amount he raised an objection before the officials of opposite parties and requested to rectify the meter for bills issued in huge amount and based on complainant’s representation to the officials of the opposite parties, they inspected the premises of the service connection and advised the Complainant to pay Rs.100/- towards charges for rectification of the meter through MRT test.  Accordingly, the Complainant paid sufficient charges on 13.01.2012 vide complaint reference No.CSC294888.  The Opposite party submitted that the new meter was fixed in the place of old meter and the old meter was sent for the MRT lab test at Simhachalam by affixing the seal in the presence of Complainant.  Thereby the MRT Test was conducted under the supervision of MRT wing on 27.01.2012 in the presence of complainant and the test was found and declared that “errors are within the limits’ and the complainant signed the test report.  It was further reported that the meter has no such hike/jumping of the meter reading as the condition of the meter is fit.  The opposite party stated that the complainant is bound to pay the arrears of Rs.24,899/- because he consumed the electricity of 3977 units, but he avoided to pay that amount and filed this complaint.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part as the bills are issued against the consumption of the meter and the meter was properly tested which is found to be correct.  The Opposite parties having done entire service to the complainant as per her request by sending the meter for testing and by providing a new meter, especially when the MRT lab test report confirms running of the meter properly.  The Complainant by suppressing the truth even though he is present at the time of inspection.  Hence there are no merits in the Complaint, as such this complaint is to be dismissed.

5.       At the time of enquiry, the Complainant filed his evidence affidavit along with documents and exhibits Ex.A1 to A5 are marked.  On the otherhand, the 1^st Opposite party filed its counter and evidence affidavit along with documents which are marked as Ex.B1.  Opposite parties 2, 3 & 4 filed adoption memo adopting the counter of 1^st opposite party.  Both the counsels were heard who reiterated their versions.

6.       In view of the respective contentions, the points that would arise for determination is:-

i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled for rectification of the bill for Rs.24,899/- and for not insisting the complainant to pay that amount

ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for damages of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony?

7.       The fact that there is no dispute that the complainant availed electricity service connection from the opposite parties and used to pay bills up to November, 2011 which is payable for the month of October, 2011 as per Ex.A1 is not in dispute.  Ex.A2 is the bill dated 22.12.2011 for an amount of Rs.24,899/- is in dispute.  The Complainant’s contention is that he is using domestic electricity service connection and on 22.12.2011 the opposite parties served the electricity bill for the month of November, 2011 payable in the month of December, 2011 for an amount of Rs.24,899/- by noting the meter reading units as 3977. Then, the complainant approached the opposite parties and submitted his representation on 13.01.2012 i.e., Ex.A4 regarding the change of his service connection.  Ex.A5 is the acknowledgment issued by the opposite parties and also payment of Rs.100/- made by the Complainant regarding the challenging fees of MRT test. 

8.       The contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant approached the opposite parties on 13.01.2012 i.e., Ex.A4 and paid Rs.100/- towards charges to rectify the meter through MRT test, accordingly, the new meter was placed in the place of old meter and the old meter was sent to the MRT test which was conducted under the supervision of MRT wing in the presence of complaint on 27.01.2012 and it was found and declared that “errors are within the limits”. Ex.B1 is the MRT test report filed by the opposite party wherein the 1^st page of the Ex.B1 there is a signature of the complainant in the consumer statement.  In Ex.B1 it was clearly mentioned that the opposite party opened the meter seal in the presence of complainant and the complainant also agreed the results of MRT test.  The 2^nd page of the MRT test report in column No.12 i.e., results of megger test it was mentioned as “errors are within the limits”, in that page No.2 there is signature of complainant in Sl.No.13 i.e., Test Results.

9.       We consider the submissions made by the opposite parties regarding the MRT test.  The complainant mentioned about the representation made by him on 13.01.2012, but there is no mention regarding the MRT test done by the opposite parties either in the complaint or in his affidavit.  The opposite parties’ counsel submitted that after payment of Rs.100/- on 13.01.2012 by the complainant, the old meter was replaced with a new meter by the opposite parties and the old meter sent for MRT test in the presence of complainant.   Hence, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as they reacted regarding the complaint issued by the complainant on 13.01.2012 and the test was conducted on 27.01.2012 in the presence of complainant and the test was found and declared that errors are within the limits and the complainant has signed for the test report.  Hence, there is no need to change the service meter as already the new meter was installed. 

10.     As such, we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and in the light of above discussion and findings, on points 1 & 2 both on fact and under law, there are no merits in the complaint and hence it is liable to be dismissed. 

11.     In the result, the complaint is dismissed and in the circumstances of the case each party has to bear their own costs.  The deposit of consumption charges are ordered to be paid to the opposite parties. 

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 15^th day of April, 2014.

   Sd/-                                                                                Sd/-

Member                                                                  President (FAC)

                                                                   District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                            Visakhapatnam

Consumer Complaint No:23/2012

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Parties:

    Sd/-                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                              President (FAC)

Member                                                       District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                            Visakhapatnam